[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4071-S4073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2479. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 
in the criteria for selecting any project for the low-income housing 
credit whether such project has high-speed internet infrastructure; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce legislation 
today with Senator Hatch that would amend the Low-Income Housing Tax 
Credit to make access to Internet and broadband technology one of the 
criteria that State housing agencies must consider when awarding the 
credits. This bill will help more low-income families gain access to 
the new technologies and services that are driving today's modern 
economy, and it will do so at very minimal cost to developers. The bill 
will take effect for all new housing built with the credit beginning on 
January 1 of next year.
  My colleagues should understand that the Kerry-Hatch bill would not 
require that new housing units have Internet or broadband capability; 
it is not an unfunded mandate. Rather, our bill simply adds broadband 
access to the list of things that State agencies would have to consider 
when they award the credits each year. Our bill also does not specify 
any particular technology, meaning that developers and providers can 
decide for themselves which technology will work best for a given 
community.
  This bill has the support of many well-known companies and 
associations from the technology and telecommunications industries, 
including Corning, Nortel Networks, BellSouth, SmartForce, the 
Telecommunications Industry Association, Siemens, and Cisco Systems. 
This is just a partial list. A number of well-known national nonprofit 
organizations and representatives of the housing industry, such as 
Habitat for Humanity, the National Leased Housing Association, and the 
National Housing Conference also support the bill. Senator Hatch and I 
hope that the Finance Committee, of which we are both members, will 
consider adding this provision when it marks up charity-related 
legislation later this month. There is no revenue cost associated with 
the bill, making it more likely that the committee will be able to 
include it.
  Several States are running ahead of the Federal Government and are 
enacting their own local policies to do what the Kerry-Hatch 
legislation will do nationally. To date, the States of Oregon and 
Nebraska have re-written their

[[Page S4072]]

policies with technical assistance from One Economy Corporation, a 
national nonprofit organization that works to bring technology to low-
income populations and make that technology a tool to help them build 
assets and raise their standards of living. Oregon and Nebraska now 
have an incentive for broadband in awarding the low-income credits. 
Dialogues are currently underway with housing finance agencies from the 
States of North Carolina, Michigan, Kentucky, and Minnesota, several of 
which may change their policies very soon.
  Understandably, there may be some Senators that believe that building 
access to broadband technology into these new low-income housing units 
will be prohibitively expensive. Well, I am happy to report that this 
is not so. Engineers from Cisco Systems have evaluated the costs of 
wiring buildings at the time of construction. When wiring a new 
building, the baseline cost to run telecommunications infrastructure 
into a unit, a fixed cost in new construction, is approximately $150. 
When adding conduit for high-speed connectivity, the cost increases 
anywhere between $1 and $25. So for a 50-unit building, that's an added 
cost of about $1,250 if you assume the highest cost. This is likely to 
be less than one-quarter of 1 percent of total construction costs, a 
small increase that is more than offset by the increased value of the 
property. The added cost is insignificant, and the added value is 
great.

  This legislation is critical because having access to and 
understanding of technology is increasingly a prerequisite for 
succeeding in today's knowledge-based economy. Technology can be a 
significant tool to help low-income families move up and out of 
poverty. I believe that this small change to section 42 of the tax code 
will help to close the digital divide in the United States by getting 
modern technology into the homes of more low-income Americans.
  Recently, some influential opinion leaders in Washington and the 
press have begun to ``debunk'' the digital divide. They claim that 
since so many more people have access to technology in the workplace, 
the percentage of families with incomes between $15,000 and $25,000 
that now use computers at home or in the workplace is now close to 50 
percent, concerns about the digital divide are overstated.
  These statistics only tell part of the story, because there are key 
Internet services that people will only feel comfortable using at home 
due to privacy concerns, such as those related to one's health or 
personal finance. Access to computers in the workplace is not 
sufficient. Sure some people might check out Yahoo when they have a 
free moment at work. They might perform an Internet search, check 
driving directions on MapQuest, or bid on something on eBay. But they 
are not going to seek financial advice, research their kids' health, or 
do anything of a truly personal nature from the workplace. And in terms 
of computer use in the home, there is still a huge digital divide: Even 
with all of the technological advances and price reductions of the past 
few years, less than 30 percent of households earning under $35,000 are 
online at home. In fact, more than one-quarter of zip codes with median 
incomes under $35,000 do not have a single high-speed Internet 
subscriber, despite the fact that the services are available. In my 
opinion, this is a real problem if we want these millions of Americans 
to participate in the Information Economy and access the online 
services that the rest of us take for granted.
  Here are some real stories from the Columbia Heights neighborhood 
here in Washington, brought to my attention by One Economy Corporation, 
that speak to the power of access to technology in the home: A mother 
of three young children uses her computer to take an online course to 
get A+ Certification from the Department of Employment Services. Having 
a computer at home means that she can take the classes online at night 
when her kids are asleep. Once she has the certification she will 
qualify for a better, higher-paying job; a young woman in her mid-20s 
uses her home computer to look for jobs and pursue educational 
opportunities. After September 11, she went online to find people to 
talk to for support; and a 50-something grandmother has a three-year 
old grandson who suffers from recurring ear infections. The doctor said 
that the little boy needed to get an operation to put tubes in his 
ears. His grandmother used the computer to research this treatment on 
the Internet and ultimately decide that it was the best thing for her 
grandson. When asked what she would have done without the Internet, she 
said that she would have ``left it up to God.''
  These are just a few examples. The central point is that access to 
computers and Internet technology in the workplace is no substitute for 
having similar access in the home.
  Another important issue to consider is the amount of time that many 
families of modest means spend interacting with public agencies. I've 
been told that can often be as high as 10 hours a month, sometimes 
more. Many of these services could undoubtedly be provided online, 
which would allow parents to spend more time at work and less waiting 
on line. Parents would also be able to spend more time with their 
children. In other words, Internet access at home could alleviate some 
of the stresses in these families' daily lives. I guess the best way to 
put it is: Being online is far better than waiting on a line.
  I look forward to promoting this important bill in the Finance 
Committee.
  I would like to take a moment to speak about the housing crisis in 
the country more generally.
  My colleagues know that I have spoken frequently on the Senate floor 
about the lack of affordable housing throughout the country. Recent 
changes in the housing market have further limited the availability of 
housing, while the growth in our economy over the last decade has 
dramatically increased the cost of the housing that remains. Many 
working families have been unable to keep up with these increased 
costs.
  While the bill I am introducing today does not specifically address 
the supply of housing, I want to reiterate my concern about and 
dedication to this issue. The low-income housing tax credit is only one 
tool, but is an effective one, generating about 85,000 new housing 
units per year. It is an important program, but it only helps a small 
fraction of the more than 5 million American households that the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates to have ``worst 
case'' housing needs, an increase of 12 percent since 1990. Many of 
these families are spending more than half their income on housing, or 
are living in severely substandard housing. On average, a person needs 
to earn more than $11 per hour just to afford the median rent on a two-
bedroom apartment in the United States. This hourly figure is 
dramatically higher in many metropolitan areas, an hourly wage of $22 
is needed in San Francisco; $21 on Long Island; $17 in Boston; $16 in 
the D.C. area; $14 in Seattle and Chicago; and, $13 in Atlanta. I have 
mentioned these statistics before. In fact, there is not one 
metropolitan area in the country where a minimum wage earner can afford 
to pay the rent for a two-bedroom apartment. A person trying to live in 
Boston would have to make more than $35,000 annually just to afford 
such a home. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police 
officers, and other full-time workers may have trouble affording even a 
modest place to live, segregating our communities by class and 
occupation.
  We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing, and the 
impact it is having on families and children around the country. It is 
not clear to me why this crisis has not caused more concern here in 
Congress. How many families need to be pushed out of their homes and 
into the streets before action is taken? Do we not act because these 
people vote less often, or because they don't give to political 
campaigns? Do we not believe that most of these Americans would prefer 
more affordable housing to the measly tax cut they received in last 
year's tax bill?
  I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path, one that 
ensures that every American has the opportunity to live in decent and 
safe housing. Everyone knows that decent housing plays an enormous role 
in shaping young lives, and we need to do more to address this quiet, 
but simmering, crisis. While the bill I am introducing today with 
Senator Hatch will certainly help

[[Page S4073]]

bring more Americans of modest means into the Information Age, it won't 
help those Americans with substandard housing, or no homes at all. 
Addressing that problem requires a greater commitment from all of us, 
and our mayors and Governors back home will all thank us.
                                 ______